(Please welcome in the comments Tom Geoghegan, author of See You in Court: How the Right Made America a Lawsuit Nation and host Rick Perlstein -- jh)
We all know conservatism killed something. It's just hard for us to put our finger on exactly what. We smell it, we feel it, we taste it—how the elementary particles of civilization, the very molecules that join together our social life, have been breaking down. But, not being molecular physicists, we somehow can't describe it, can't name it. You have to be really, really smart, pay extraordinary attention to the tiniest details, to do that.
Tom Geoghegan? He's our molecular physicist. In his daily work as a lawyer for people screwed by the new American order—employees fired for joining a union, losing their pensions, replaced by younger workers that companies can pay less; working mothers whose daily life is monopolized by harassment from collection agencies; retirees sued for debts they didn't even know they owed—he's gathered the evidence to make sense of all that does not make sense.
So read Tom Geoghegan. For those who haven't had time for See You in Court—let alone his other masterpieces, Which Side Are You On? (1991), The Secret Lives of Citizens, and In America's Court (2002)—I'm pleased to provide Cliff Notes. Goggle this. I'll wait.
Back yet? Good. You're hooked.
So what's the argument?
In the world Ronald Reagan gave us, "More and more people experience the law as arbitrary." Our work lives, even if we weren't necessarily in unions, were bounded by stable, transparent, easily enforceable contracts. Now we sign "employee handbooks" that look like labor contracts used to look—"but on page 100 it says: 'Nothing herein is enforceable.' Warning: This is not a contract. We take job because of promised "lifetime" benefits that get cut off with a week's warning.
Here's a classic Geoghegan aperçus, what he sees every day in the trenches among his working class clients: "With no early retirement and no funded pension based on thirty years and out, the only way 'out' for people now is to fight to get on Social Seurity disability.... Disability is the new kind of welfare, a kind of AFDC for older men. We got young single mothers off welfare, and we have older men on instead.... And they aren't faking. People really are sick. It's the stress of not having a pension or a retirement. To keep taking on stress is an unconscious way of trying to put yourself out of business. It's a call for help. Or maybe it's despair."
I guess that's why Geoghegan's books don't become bestsellers: most of us would prefer to avert our eyes from the spectacle of old men working themselves near to death, intentionally, because it's the only way they can imagine a secure and stable environment. Of course we avert our eyes: we let it happen. "Over the last thirty years, we have made big changes in the law. But to all these big changes, there has been no real consent."
What happened? Instead of contracts, we have tort—suing people for perceived wrongs. That got rid of an efficient, predictable, cheap method for settling disputes. "People scream over something for years that a union business agent used to handle in a single afternoon." Instead, you get slash-and-burn lawsuits, with endless periods of harassing "discovery," in which opposing lawyers endeavor into plaintiff and defendants' hearts. Which rich corporations love. Because they can afford to hire more and more voracious lawyers, and keep the thing going on forever, until ordinary folks simply give up.
Or, if it's a credit card company they're dealing with, they'll be forced to submit to "arbitration"—and the banks literally hire the arbitrators. "The more we 'rationalize' the law to get out of the way of the market, the more irrational and arbitrary it seems to become."
"People want more stability, but they keep getting less." That's the wages of deregulation." Instead of the government setting the rules, we give the field over to boodlers, and call it a "free market." "And one paradox is that the more we deregulate, the more we have to go to court—much more than fifty years ago." Or, as he puts it more pithily: "When people are treated like suckers, no wonder they're in court." And the rich love lawsuits. Or they certainly prefer them to democracy.
They hate citizenship, too. All Tom's books are about citizenship. In this one, he points out that when companies fire union-minded folk, they strangle nascent citizens in their cradle—"the types who go to meetings. Our worthiest citizens learned a terrible lesson: don't stick your neck out, don't worry about your neighbor, don't get involved. All these illegal firings had a paralyzing effect on the political life of this country, as it is lived out at the median income level and below."
Another cost of deregulation: "charitable institutions" that chew people up and spits them up like bloodthirsty beasts. "No trustees, the guardians... Indeed, these new voracious 'charities' are partly responsible for our litigation mess... Hospitals and doctors sue their patients far more than their patients sue them." One thing it isn't: a free market. A "charity" hospital "picks any price it likes, and then effectively negotiates the real contract in court, by threat and intimidation."
All these intersecting vicious circles just degrade the moral level of our civilization. "Getting rid of law does not end litigation. It often leads to new types of litigation, especially the kind where people stalk each other for revenge."
"We can identify with the guarded or we can identify with the guards.... more and more of us are developing the moral character of guards..... Instead of celebrating equality under the law, we are developing more of a Hindu sense of caste."
"It will be truly hard to imagine all of us under a single rule of law.... It's not the income inequality, but the sense of unfairness and futility that is so destabilizing."
"Perhaps as the rich get richer, the meek get meeker. Instead of farmers or skilled mechnanics or industrial workers in unions, more people work in 'services.' They 'serve.' Just as waiters depend on the rich for tips, more of us also earn our living by currying favor with people higher up."
Grim stuff, yes. But as for me, it's not like I read every word Tom Geoghegan writes out of some misbegotten sense of duty. I read it because he's hilarious.
"I became co-counsel in a suit against a drug company. The original lawyer started with one woman, a top salesperson. The drug company replaced her with an ex-college cheerleader, a blond bunny who could lure the doctors into the lobby and giggle and say, 'Would you like to see my pills?' But usually it's a pattern. In fact, other people lost jobs to bunnies. The drug industry is turning into a version of Hooter's."
Hilarious, and hopeful. This book, unlike all his others, features a concluding chapter with a program for what we can, as citizens, do about all this. Ask him, maybe, about that.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight



Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search


RSS/XML Feed
Welcome Tom and welcome Rick.
Well I guess if Fox Financial News can go the Hooters route, why not Pfizer.
Thomas, Rick, welcome to the Lake.
Thanks!
Tom, Rick, so glad you could join us today!
I’m ready to give legal advice too to anyone who’s been fired.
Hello, Tom and Rick.
How about automated collection agency calls? I recently moved into a new place and the person who had this number obviously had some collection issues. If you tell them not to call you any more they can’t so I do, but one company has automated robocalls that tell you to call them. I’m always running to grab the phone and it’s the same recorded message. It’s got to be illegal.
We have an economy that has replaced steelworkers with debt collectors and security guards. There is no way to get rid of them in the end. It’s like campaign finance reform. As long as there is a plutocracy and a creditor debtor legal regime, debt collectors will have a privileged position in the law.
We (Americans) find ourselves in a very bad situation. Thank God my wife and I have jobs. But perhaps only because most people don’t want to do what we do. No. We don’t mow lawns for a living. We teach in a public school.
Firedoglake readers are very, very, very concerned about how conservative ideology has invested the executive branch with massive new powers. But you argue that this president actually has less power. Why?
Tom,
I read _Which Side Are You On?_ when it came out. I read _The Law In Shambles_ on a plane between Anchorage and Seattle and read it again going back north. These books were way ahead of their time, much more subtle than more recent books with a similar viewpoint. Haven’t read any of your stuff since, but probably because there are so many good books on these subjects now.
Have you been paying attention to the upcoming Supreme Court case involving the class action suit against Exxon over the punitive damages for the Exxon Valdez catastrophe? Do you have an outcome prediction, given Justice Alito has recused himself?
Welcome Tom, I’m a bankruptcy lawyer. My clients are primarily working class debtors. I fully agree with the sentiments above. One of my consistent beliefs is that the courts are now stocked with judges who have only been corporate lawyers or prosecutors. Rarely do I come accross a judge who has regularly represented working class or working poor folks. My hope is that the next administration (either Obama or Clinton)will change the trend, perhaps a John Edwards on the SC. In your view is there any hope?
I had that for the entire time I lived in Florida. Firm called NCO and even when I took the time to call and inform them that the number no longer belonged to the debtor, they still persisted.
Not just Bush but the next President will be weakened as well. Look at how Congress determined who would give Bush his intelligence briefings every morning. I’m appalled at Bush’s excesses of course, but these really come from a weakened state of the modern Presidency. Fewer people vote. There is permanent deadlock, and Congress has shrunk the size and importance of the Executive Branch compared to the FDR-to-Nixon era. the best and brightests are law clerkds to neo cons. So Bush tries to build a constituency for his weakened Presidency by starting wars, raising the torture issue, etc., so as to radicalize and create a base from which he can govern.
Tom,
What’s your perspective on the king of the personal responsibility crowd, Robert Bork, and his lawsuit against the Yale Club after he fell there while I believe giving a speech?
His actions seem to exemplify the way that the Right wants to maintain their right to do things while denying the rest of us those same rights.
We have become a very low paying, without benefits, service economy. Think about that when you next chomp down on that choco-mint left on your pillow in the hotel room. Obviously what we need are more wars, aditional loose available credit, tax cuts for the wealthy, and John McCain.
To Edward Teller: I haven’t been following the case!
I work for my self as a architect and do sub contract work for other architects and I can’t enforce and “equity” ever. I get ripped off for amounts to small to sue for and most dead beats know how to game the system and wear you down trying for justice.
And lawyers are too expensive and will take most of any settlement. So all you get is the satisfaction of winning if you do.
Basically we have a corrupt system and mostly unethical greedy people in it.
Stop spending $15,000,000,000 per month on war. Raise taxes and spend the war savings on infra structure, health care, education, R&D, and creation of envornmental jobs.
Speaking of courts and trials.
The IRS court is unconstitutional because the have no jury trials. 7th Amendment:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
And how can they force an arbitration prceding on a plaintiff with a financial claim? 7th Amendment again
Welcome Tom and Rick. Seems there was a time, decades ago, when individuals saw the courts as the means to achieve justice, and liberal public interest law firms took up broad issues to secure broad reforms. But I think that’s reversed now; individual rights are now settled by mandatory and lmited arbritration, not in courts; and the courts themselves have become populated by appointees who are just as likely to interpret a statute against it’s original intent to protect people against corporate power. For these reasons, I no longer see the courts as the protectors of individual rights. Does the book develop/explain that transition? or am I just mistaken?
To Dakine, The neo con’s like to emphasize the transvaluation of all values - I mean that with originalism, and other doctrines, they like to outrage the moderate left with arbitrary outcomes and results. So it is in perfect keeping with the neo con spirit that Bork would do exactly the opposite of what he would preach. In fact the point of the book I wrote is that the right, not the left, is increasing litigation by destroying the stable character of the rule of law.
To Kiddo, We can’t do these things until we have a modicum of majority rule.
What do you think about BushCo’s new brand for the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others suing the lawbreaker-telecoms: “trial lawyers?” What a rotten thing to call someone who is fighting for our civil liberties, huh?
Welcome, Tom, and welcome back, Rick!
Welcome Rick and Tom!
I love Tom’s new book (as I loved Which Side are You on?) - not only very forward thinking and important, but a fun read as well! I can’t recommend it highly enough!
Also
Motion for Summary Judgment is unconstitutional in cases involving more than $20 because it denies plaintiff a trial by jury. IRS and others use it all the time to have a JUDGE kick plaintifs from court.
Do you want your children and grand children working for the rest of their lives as bus-boys and waitresses? Or changing bed sheets in the local Motel 6? Or bed pans in the community hospital?
To Scarecrow: Because of arbitrations, there are more court cases than ever - i.e., cases to enforce the awards, which is why the big companies insert the arbitration clauses. By the way, the Supreme court has struckdownattempts by progressive state legislatures to regulate the abusive use of arbitration.
One of the problems I have experienced with recent litigation is that the experts fees, Buck Rogers courtroom technology and the draconian pretrial orders have made the cost of getting ready to do battle with the rich and powerful [corporate America] almost prohibitive. Is that your experience?
Jury trials are too damn democratic for corporations as defendants in lawsuits to submit to. They prefer judges who are from the right class of folks. So they try for an appeal and get it away from a jury.
I would like to see a term limit for the Supremes too.
We need more democracy not less.
Our legal system is a farce.
Summary judgment is a bizarre and very expensive way of deciding disputes. Of course there are almost always facts in dispute, and lawyers have raised the constitutional issue. But because of the civic disengagement of the country, lawyers on both sides, left and right, often avoid juries. Trials have disappeared. Judges hate them. People have to be dragged in off the street in some states for jury duty.
Tom I declared bankruptcy in 1995 before the new law was passed. I had about $100,000.00 in school loan debt and mortgage in an area where the regional property values lost about 50% of their value. I had paid 25% down with good credit and a vet loan of 8% which was good at the time 1980. Only problem at age 40 with my new degree I was not employable so servicing the debt and the walk away situation with my home which I deeded back estoppel to the mortgage company that bought mine out.
I was fortunate…millions of Americans are facing no equity home ownershipo and maxed credit. What can they do under the new credit company freindly bankruptcy laws?
Arbitration is unconstitutional
7th Amendment:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
My wife is reminding me to be polite. And as usual she is right.
To oldgold - mediators are expensive too. Yes, it’s very hard to take on corporations at least in a three yards up the middle approach. You have to find some technicality like a kind of trip wire that renders the wealth advantage useless.
Lahoma!
To Big Brother: Well, if we get the right kind of Senate in the next election, maybe we can modify the bankruptcy laws. But I think corporate America and the banks are looking for ways to induce people to get back in debt again even after bankruptcy. If we can’t get credit, the economy collapses, as you may notice it seems to be doing now.
Why do you think the “subprime crisis” happened and what does it mean for the Rule of Law?
In American arbitration law there exists a small but significant body of case law which deals with the power of the courts to intervene where the decision of an arbitrator is in fundamental disaccord with the applicable principles of law or the contract.[24]
Unfortunately there is little agreement amongst the different American judgments and textbooks as to whether such a separate doctrine exists at all, or the circumstances in which it would apply. There does not appear to be any recorded judicial decision in which it has been applied. However, conceptually, to the extent it exists, the doctrine would be an important derogation from the general principle that awards are not subject to review by the courts.
Hello Raven.
L.
The short answer is greed. Lots of people were in it for fees and transaction commissions and they had no responsibility about the suitability of the buyers to meet the terms of the contract (regardless of how predatory or mot they were).
Hey I didn’t make the deal, I am only the real estate broker, or the title insurance of the bindler, or the mortgage broker or whatever. No accountability and lots of greed and the simple notion of paying FEES
FEES are no labor. Fees are rip offs.
Well, I was dithering about adding a chapter on predatory mortgages when publication of the book was put off a few months. I wish I had written it now. The problem is similar to what I described on other issues - the state law attempts to regulate the predatory lending were struck down even by liberals on the Supreme Court, and the federal government did nothing, because of deadlock and/or the Bush era ascendancy of the free marketright. We have a kind of negative New Deal which precludes the states from acting in order for the federal government to dither and do not one darned thing at all
Commissions and fees and “interest” iteelf are the cause of the coming collapse and of course printing money as selling debt as an asset.
In federal labor law there is occasionally a reversal of an arbitrator’s decision, but not in state courts when the awards are just dumped en masse by credit card companies.
Tom,
In my opinion, if we could make enough noise for our Congressional and Judicial Branches to look at the wrongful acceptance of 14th Amendment guarantees for corporate personhood, it would go a long to true reform.
Corporations now enjoy the same protections under the 14th amendment that flesh and blood persons do. I find it odd as a corporation can live in perpetuity (unlike heartbeat challenged humans) and acquire extreme wealth by pooling its own human resources.
Challenge corporate personhood and all the changes will come as a natural result.
Tom a get weekly 4 to 5 letters that say I am pre approved fro an attactive crdit card.
To support what you say that the banks want you to be in debt…I get at least two letters from credit card companies with blank check offerring me subprime style credit card loans with no interest for up to a year. Language enticing me to purchase glamour items. It is never about necessities like replacing leaking roof or othe necessities. That really borders on entrapment. I shred the pages of checks. Any thoughts on that strategy…that entice older folks.
There ya go
unfettered free market laisez faire (no government meddling) capitalism
Or…
let’s use the taxes collected for the private sector because government can’t do it right.
But let’s borrow those expenditures we send to corporatins and send the bill to the future.
The problem for me is not corporate status per se but the use of sub’s to protect investors from liability. There are some attempts, like in ERISA, to facilitate piercing the corporate veil. If the requirements for piercing the veil were relaxed, then corporate america really would be responsible for the pension and health insurance debts that they justly owe to their workers.
I lost an arbitration with Nissan after the transmissin was replaced 9 times. They said I did not know how to drive!
This is a good point. Beyond that, there’s another disparity between corporations and human beings - they needn’t fear punishment. After all it’s the human employees of a corporation who suffer when it is punished. It’s less likely to happen, because the government will try to act on behalf of those humans, and the folks who run the corporations seldom face any real penalty - even loss of wealth.
To big brother, The problem is that with the collapse of the usury laws, the banks have every incentive to push people into debt at rates of 17 percent or much higher. Even with defaults, they make big money in the end. What you describe would not happen if there were ceilings like 8 or 9 percent as there were before the federal courts began to throw out state interest rate caps.
Citibank came up the the idea of the CCard because they wanted to pry the money people had in their savings accounts.
You don’t need savings. You need CREDIT and a credit rating. When did they begin that nonsense?
Now people are rated by how much debt they can hold. hahahaha
I should skip ahead to the last chapter, Tom, to be thinking about the solutions as I’m reading about the problems. It’s going to be a daunting task to undo or redo or do something else, if that’s even possible. My cynicism is justified.
What you say about transvaluation and the neocon’s delight in mind games explains the vertigo I used to feel every time I’d read or hear one of their explanations of How Things Work, or the New Reality. It never was my reality.
Nissan probably picked the arbitrator if there was an arbitration clause in the sale agreement. The National Arbitration Forum, according to the Washington Post, decided with the client 99 percent of the time.
Let me see if I get the concept. ‘Majority rules’?
What is your take on the recent Deustche Bank’s problem of foreclosing because they lacked a clear title to the houses, since the Securers had sliced and diced it so much…? BTW, Aloha and welcome to the Lake!
The ultimate solution is to modernize the constitution and to put in a bill of social rights similar to the bill of political rights that the Anti Federalists demanded and got. But failing that, I have a few other ideas that are listed in chapter 15, which serves as a kind of presentation of the “plan”in high school debate parlance.
As to Deutshe Bank and the rest of them, what is astonishing is the naivete of the banking world which is partly a product of the belief that if anything goes wrong someone will bail them out,.
It’s pretty obvious that the constitution is not adhered to and certainly not the spirit of it.
And then you have the supremes which ignore it as in Bush v Gore.
Why bother?
“…which serves as a kind of presentation of the “plan”in high school debate parlance.”
Interesting.
Kiddo has gone out to chop wood and cool off. And we don’t have fire place. I think I’ll join him.
Lahoma.
And the federal government… that is the tax payers do every time.
Chrysler, the airlines after 911, Mexico and now the fed loans money to banks so that they can have liquidity.
Banks are insolvent. The lend money they don’t have. All of them.
To Kiddo: the root of the problem is that the Senate is so unrepresentative, i.e., not based on one person one vote. In law school, a friend of mine had a question on his con law exam: Describe the ways that the Constitution is unconstitutional. The Senate was put in place to protect slavery and slave labor and now it exists for the related purpose of preserving an economy based on low wage and low skill labor from European type social democracy.
European social democracy? Aren’t they less economically competitive than us?
Germany is the world’s leading exporter - much more than China, even though (unlike China) handicapped by a high euro. If the U.S. were not draining money out of countries holding our dollars, they’d invest more internally and be even more likely to buy the things that the EU countries export so successfuly (or more successfuly than us)
Our legal deregulation has built up the financial sector at the expense of the industrial sector, a point I touch on in the book
Tom can chat for another twenty minutes or so. Then we’re going to a concert of Turkish music.
It’s a little depressing. Tell us something optimistic.
Wow. That is an insane statistic.
What’s your opinion of the prevalence of judges who think it is their duty to honor a “higher law” than the law of the land. Are there more in the south? Is it a problem now or a problem waiting to happen?
Namely, we taxpayers. Was Chrysler the beginning of this trend?
They have much higher legacy costs, but, their populaces are better served than our woeful Social Safety Net… Everyone has access to medical care, their elderly are better taken care of, and, the poor are fed, housed, and clothed to a higher standard than our poor…!
The possibility that the U.S. Senate could have 60 democratic votes, enough to break cloture, AND that a Democrat could take the White House. I think the flip of the Senate is slightly more likely than taking the White House, but I rate both as being quite high. If the Senate flips, then there is a chance for some of the initiatives that I lay out in chapter 15
Mais oui. I was playing devil’s advocate.
I’m in favor of judges relying on a higher law, i.e., international law as the Supreme Court did in the Texas sodomy case.
Roberts and Scalia are aghast that the left invokes a higher law.
Alas, I wasn’t talking about some sensible higher law *g*
I’d say it happened earlier with the S&L bailout!
Makes you wonder why we bother with arbitration at all, doesn’t it?
Thanks everyone, I enjoyed it. Thanks to Rick for hosting me. Since writing the book, I have thought of a few other things I wish I had said, and one or two have slipped into a column I sometimes write for The American Prospect.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/art.....r_own_doom
Thank you, Tom, it was an honor to have you here with us.
Considering that somewhere between a quarter and a third of Senate Democrats side with Republicans on many issues, I think that’s very optimistic. At that rate, you’d need at least 80 seats in Democratic Party hands. What makes you think that’s bad logic, besides assuming that one quarter of the new Dems would be siding with Republicans, too?
Oops, just missed the cut. Thanks for chatting today.
Thanks Tom & Rick! brilliant as always!
OT, how do you dispose of 143 million pounds of beef?
[RBG Note; that story is in the front page News Box. Let’s take any conversation there or to the previous thread. Thanks.]
Call McDonald’s
And here comes another big BIG credit problem.
Yep, they very well may.
Doggie food?
Let’s stay on topic in this thread, please. Off topic conversations are welcome on the previous thread.
Thanks.
It’s a little more complicated than that.
A Senate with equal representation of each state was a compromise that was required in order to convince the delegates from the smaller states to approve the Constitution at the Convention. Some of those states were slave states, and would have considered this equal representation as important for protecting their interest in slavery. However, there were small free states who considered equal representation important and desirable for protecting other interests.
Conversely, the large slave state Virgina emphatically did not want a Senate with equal representation. The original proposal for a bicameral legislature originated with the Virginia delegates and was based on proportional representation in both houses. Only the compromise plan of equal representation in the Senate and proportional representation in the House was able to gain the support of a sufficient number of delegations to be included in the final version presented for ratification.
Sorry, RBG. I thought it was okay since the author has said good-bye.
Loo Hoo, I think we’re EPU.
Yes, and I agree with your 91. Good one.